Should men and women compete against each other in athletics?

Options
13567

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    zipa78 wrote: »
    There are some female drivers as well that I know off, but none of them have really made it on the highest levels. This is probably at least partially because of the very limited interest in motorsports among women.

    There is probably a degree of systemic bias, but that'll just compound the market penetration issue.

  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Options
    This is a silly debate. We're equal.

    Let that be our guide.
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    Male elite athletes will beat out female elite athletes in any highly physical athletic competition because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and the genetic disparity between the sexes that resulted.

  • GilBrennan
    GilBrennan Posts: 16
    Options
    So... not equal?
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    GilBrennan wrote: »
    So... not equal?

    Not physiologically, no.
  • GilBrennan
    GilBrennan Posts: 16
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    GilBrennan wrote: »
    So... not equal?

    Not physiologically, no.

    So I should keep opening doors?
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    GilBrennan wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    GilBrennan wrote: »
    So... not equal?

    Not physiologically, no.

    So I should keep opening doors?

    Don't attempt to start a debate that has nothing to do with the topic, no one (hopefully) is falling for it.
  • Sam_I_Am77
    Sam_I_Am77 Posts: 2,093 Member
    Options
    I think it depends on the sport. Things like Rugby and Football I think men would have an unfair advantage due to do size and strength alone. Sports like Soccer, Baseball, Track & Field, etc., could work.

    I've found co-ed sports difficult for me at times because I grew-up with the whole "you never hit a woman". I've found that even in things like Soccer when I go to attack the ball that if a woman is going after it I tend to back off. It's not because I don't respect her it's just because I'm concerned about slamming into her.
  • GilBrennan
    GilBrennan Posts: 16
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    GilBrennan wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    GilBrennan wrote: »
    So... not equal?

    Not physiologically, no.

    So I should keep opening doors?

    Don't attempt to start a debate that has nothing to do with the topic, no one (hopefully) is falling for it.

    hah, white knight is mad!
    It's super effective.

    Let them compete together, it's not for money, so who cares. When it's for money, let those who can afford it compete. God can sort the bodies out later.
  • GiddyupTim
    GiddyupTim Posts: 2,819 Member
    Options
    I played soccer for many, many years. Even played on a coed team once. I thought it was a disaster. Males are much more aggressive. Most of the males who played coed were not good players. Good players played in all-male leagues. The coed guys were guys who had played in high school and had not played much since and often they were too competitive and played out of control. I never saw a woman hurt seriously, but I saw them knocked down and hurt.
    Now, that was a while ago, and things are different now. Women grow up playing soccer and many have excellent skills -- heck, better skills than American men of my generation had. They can hold their own on the field and they do. I see pick-up soccer games all the time with many women in them. Can they run as fast? No. Can they bump back when play gets physical? No. But they are not out of the game. If they want to do it, and the guys are willing to not be thugs, women definitely should play.
    It is nice to have females out there. And guys are more used to it too and they make slight allowances.
    I think the same holds true for pick-up basketball games on college campuses. Many women chose to play now and their teams win!
    I enjoy playing mixed doubles tennis. However, many guys who play will pick on the woman as the weaker player and even hit close-range overheads at her. It can be a bit hard to take.
  • terar21
    terar21 Posts: 523 Member
    Options
    myfelinepal wrote: »
    Because at the physical pinnacle, men would beat women every time in most sports. There's records to prove it and everything. For instance, Flo Jo's world record is almost a second slower than Usain Bolt's.

    That would then lead to women not getting sponsorship/funding at all because there's no chance of them being in the elite and you would see women in sports becoming even less visible than they are currently.

    That's not to say that some sports (think pub sports e.g. darts, snooker) women could compete as equals to men. Horse racing has had more female jockeys introduced recently, for instance. Formula 1 and other motorsports also have the ocassional women drivers.

    But, out and out physical sports it would ruin women within that sport because they'd have no chance to be best in the world.

    That would include tennis (30 mph difference in fastest serve speed) and probably golf (35 yd average driving distance difference.)

    My resources are google and wikipedia, so not gospel, but you get the idea.

    This. There are women can certainly compete professionally with men in athletics. But whereas one woman might be at the top of her game on the women's side, she'd just be highly-gifted but not top material on the men's side.

    Using the reference of Flo Jo. She wouldn't be at the finals for men's 100m. She wouldn't have qualified to represent the USA because of the higher level of competition. But she would have been competitive and beat men in the first round at the Olympics. So I guess it depends on your definition of elite. If your definition of elite would be the finals, no she wouldn't be elite. If your definition of elite would be competing in the first round, then yes. There are those who could be competitive, but wouldn't not be top level due to some innate genetic advantages. Just like there are women who could sit on the end of an NBA bench or play D league, but they wouldn't be Lebron...most men won't either :D
  • yusaku02
    yusaku02 Posts: 3,472 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    terar21 wrote: »
    Just like there are women who could sit on the end of an NBA bench
    I'm not so sure about this one. The NBA has very small rosters so it's already insanely competitive to stay in the league year after year if you're not a stud player.
  • GiddyupTim
    GiddyupTim Posts: 2,819 Member
    Options
    These discussions of professional and/or competitive athletics are silly. Of course, competition on that level would not work and is not fair.
    Using tennis as an example, I am pretty sure Serena Williams could not beat the 100th best male player.
    That does not diminish female athletics. I like watching women's soccer.
    Many, many people think the Women's College World Series is one of the best athletic events of the year -- walk into any sports-bar when it is being played.
    And it is worth noting: When a 50th-ranked male player came out publicly and said that women should not earn the same prize money as men at the Grand Slam tennis tournaments, because female tennis wasn't as interesting, Maria Sharapova responded: "I am pretty sure more people watch my matches than watch his."
    She was right.
  • amandarunning
    amandarunning Posts: 306 Member
    Options
    Invariably when size and strength are an advantage women can't compete so it would be the death knell for females in such sports. Sure at amatuer levels it's less of an issue but at elite/pro level then there'd be no place for women - they just couldn't overcome the physiological differences even if they worked harder.

    I play golf and we do compete but there is a handicap system and also a difference in the length of the course. Both work although it's one of the few sports where the beter you get the harder it is to win (unless it's a scratch competition).
  • peter56765
    peter56765 Posts: 352 Member
    Options
    At the elite level, only the top physical specimens can compete. The reason Michael Phelps wins is not only because he is an top form, it's because genetics has favored him: He's 6'4"". His arms are 3" longer than the average for his height. He has size 14 feet vs the average size 12 for his height. He has relatively short legs and a longer trunk. He has a genetic advantage that causes his muscles to produce less lactic acid, etc. He's definitely an outlier physically among men. And while there are almost no other men in the world like him, there are no women at all in his category.

    In the US, having men and women compete at the collegiate level would be a thorny issue. Title IX demands colleges allocate money equally for men and women's sports and scholarships but if there was only one co-ed team per sport (basketball, football, hockey, swimming, etc.) it would be mostly men just based on statistics. So you'd either have to ditch Title IX, which means men and women no longer would have equal opportunities in collegiate athletics or else create quotas dictating equal numbers of men and women on each team and demand equal playing time - a bureaucratic nightmare - and of course it would kill the competitive nature of the sport. Everyone would know that the best team was never being fielded and coaches would not be able to substitute in any athlete they want for strategic purposes.
  • peter56765
    peter56765 Posts: 352 Member
    Options
    tufel wrote: »
    These discussions of professional and/or competitive athletics are silly. Of course, competition on that level would not work and is not fair.
    Using tennis as an example, I am pretty sure Serena Williams could not beat the 100th best male player.
    That does not diminish female athletics. I like watching women's soccer.
    Many, many people think the Women's College World Series is one of the best athletic events of the year -- walk into any sports-bar when it is being played.
    And it is worth noting: When a 50th-ranked male player came out publicly and said that women should not earn the same prize money as men at the Grand Slam tennis tournaments, because female tennis wasn't as interesting, Maria Sharapova responded: "I am pretty sure more people watch my matches than watch his."
    She was right    .

    I suspect she was. Could the same be said when Matina Navratilova was the top female tennis player? I think we all know the answer and we all know it has nothing to do with how well either of them played. Is that what we really want to make female sports more "interesting"?
  • GiddyupTim
    GiddyupTim Posts: 2,819 Member
    Options
    peter56765 wrote: »
    tufel wrote: »
    These discussions of professional and/or competitive athletics are silly. Of course, competition on that level would not work and is not fair.
    Using tennis as an example, I am pretty sure Serena Williams could not beat the 100th best male player.
    That does not diminish female athletics. I like watching women's soccer.
    Many, many people think the Women's College World Series is one of the best athletic events of the year -- walk into any sports-bar when it is being played.
    And it is worth noting: When a 50th-ranked male player came out publicly and said that women should not earn the same prize money as men at the Grand Slam tennis tournaments, because female tennis wasn't as interesting, Maria Sharapova responded: "I am pretty sure more people watch my matches than watch his."
    She was right    .

    I suspect she was. Could the same be said when Matina Navratilova was the top female tennis player? I think we all know the answer and we all know it has nothing to do with how well either of them played. Is that what we really want to make female sports more "interesting"?

    I do not understand what you are saying? Yes. Many of Martina Navratilova's matches were televised, as were the men's finals. People watched Martina. They loved watching her rivalry with Chris Evert.
    Fewer people attended the lower-ranked men's matches and they were not televised.
    I am going to guess that the point you allude to is that people won't watch women's sports because women do not jump as high or run as fast as men. But that is just not true. People watch sports for the drama and the uncertainty of the outcome. If opponents are fairly and evenly matched, that drama is there.
    BTW, the most watched tennis match of all time is the match between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. And the woman won!
  • bryandynaxus3
    bryandynaxus3 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    I know a few women who can out lift me in everything lol. They are in the 150lb range and I weigh 220. I also know a couple ladies who would kick my *kitten* in a sparring match
  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    Options
    Sure; dismantle Title IX, instituted survival of the fittest and no more crying about lack of equal opportunity. I would love to live in la la land of social equality but it's only 2015.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    Options
    I think there is something to be said for a skilled sport versus and a less skilled sport.

    golf- more skill- less physical
    - I suspect a woman could play more evenly.

    3 day eventing- or any of the equine sports
    - women compete more equally.

    Sports that require more physical interaction- no. They won't and cant' compete at high levels.

    Not to say they can't do the things being asked of them- but the reality is a trained man men will always be harder stronger faster than a trained woman- unless skill is the leading factor.

    But hell- even with motorcycle racing- it's lead by men- very skill driven- few women can keep up- it's a physical sport- but it's skill driven- and you just don't see women competing the same way.

    Harsh reality- but there it is.

Categories